Slashdot Mirror


Russian Hackers Exploited Kaspersky Antivirus To Steal NSA Data on US Cyber Defense: WSJ (wsj.com)

An NSA contractor brought home highly classified documents that detailed how the U.S. penetrates foreign computer networks and defends against cyberattacks. The contractor used Kaspersky antivirus on his home computer, which hackers working for the Russian government exploited to steal the documents, the WSJ reported on Thursday (the link could be paywalled; alternative source), citing multiple people with knowledge of the matter. From the report: The hackers appear to have targeted the contractor after identifying the files through the contractor's use of a popular antivirus software made by Russia-based Kaspersky Lab, these people said. The theft, which hasn't been disclosed, is considered by experts to be one of the most significant security breaches in recent years. It offers a rare glimpse into how the intelligence community thinks Russian intelligence exploits a widely available commercial software product to spy on the U.S. The incident occurred in 2015 but wasn't discovered until spring of last year, said the people familiar with the matter. Having such information could give the Russian government information on how to protect its own networks, making it more difficult for the NSA to conduct its work. It also could give the Russians methods to infiltrate the networks of the U.S. and other nations, these people said. Ahead of the publication of WSJ report, Kaspersky founder Eugene Kaspersky tweeted, "New conspiracy theory, anon sources media story coming. Note we make no apologies for being aggressive in the battle against cyberthreats."

223 comments

  1. LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK fanboys, I've got the popcorn out, what is your new excuse why they should still be trusted? The nonsense people said last week was so rich, I'm waiting for it to grow even more absurd today as the cognitive dissonance builds and blinds them to the quality of their arguments.

    1. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      OK fanboys, I've got the popcorn out, what is your new excuse why they should still be trusted? The nonsense people said last week was so rich, I'm waiting for it to grow even more absurd today as the cognitive dissonance builds and blinds them to the quality of their arguments.

      But but!

      Russian face book ads! Russian campaign interference! The russian's hacked hillary's email!

      RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!

    2. Re:LOL by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      your new excuse [defense?]

      Simple, Ruskies probably did the same to the OTHER antivirus co's. We just haven't heard about it yet.

      Doesn't mean K is good, just that like the telecoms, their competition also sucks. In the land of D-minuses, D is king.

    3. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to the summary, an anti-virus product helped to protect against cyberattacks. Meanwhile, certain foreign govermnent-sponsored hackers are complaining that some of their victims may now be able to defend themselves against some of their cyberattacks. This poses no additional risk to citizens of the U.S. unless the NSA chooses to withhold information about the exploits that they had been using.

      Why who should be trusted, by the way? Were you addressing fanboys of the WSJ, the NSA, Kaspersky Lab, or those hackers who hacked the other hackers?

    4. Re:LOL by DivineKnight · · Score: 2

      Russian hackers / {crackers}? Your guess is as good as mine. Though they are pretty good at cracking DRM on video games, etc. I think I'm supposed to post something like: ----===Greetz Fr0m Raz0r 1911 to all the crews===----...

      Oh wait, you meant Kaspersky. Still looking for some evidence there...I mean, they are Russian (I think?), but that's purely beyond their control (they were born that way).

      Now, why the contractor was using last year's antiviral / anti-malware solution? Questions should be asked. I could double-check the leaked Panama Papers, but I thought BitDefender...and one other, someone remind me, was this year's hotness. Unless that's what the CIA / NSA wants us to think (puts on tin foil hat).

       

    5. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA is worse. I am American and can see plainly even how in our biased media many hacks USA did of Russian assets only now when the boot is laced on the other side is there an outcry. You kapersky haters get your news from democrat media outlets then you wonder why reality dosent match expectations. You are pathetic cultural marxists.

    6. Re:LOL by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Stupid is stupid and no way around that. But do enjoy your popcorn, that seems to be right down your alley. difficulty wise. But I would advise you to stay away from anything mentally more tasking.

      Incidentally, you are being stupid by believing Kaspersky is any less trustworthy than their competitors.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really comes down to a simple choice: which country's spyware do you prefer to have on your computer. You must pick one!
      - If your job depends on not disclosing info to foreigners, be patriotic and use NSA spyware.
      - If your freedom depends on not being jailed, be smart and use the software from the Russians.

      Case in point:
      a) In Germany, the police routinely install rootkits on citizens' laptops, and you can go to jail if you download a wrong text file (e.g. Mein Kampf)... Therefore, if I lived in Germany, I would probably use Kaspersky, not McAfee.
      b) Living in Russia, on the other hand, you do have complete freedom of speech as long as you don't criticize Putin, so for an activist, installing Kaspersky might not be such a great idea. Use McAfee.

    8. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      whatever you say, Ivan.

    9. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fine for the US to hack Russia, it's fine for Russia to hack the US. But its also fine and expected that either country will try to stop the other.

    10. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you see, because the US does this to other countries, apparently they're supposed to take it up the ass from every passing hacker with a grudge. And we're supposed to all accept this because it's the way of the world.

      Or some other weaksauce Putinist bullshit.

    11. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wolverines!

    12. Re:LOL by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm willing to buy the argument that they were more easily exploitable because of their domestic Russian base -- that means vulnerable humans who can turned through the usual apparatus of spycraft and domestic security services, as well as increased general vulnerability because of their geographic location.

      That being said, I think any software producer whose products are expected to run at "ring zero" of security should be thought of as vulnerable, regardless of where they are based. I'm sure the intelligence services and security services long ago made the conceptual leap that these were vulnerable targets that would give them direct entry into high value targets due to the nature of their functional security requirements.

      I think the chain of trust anymore is pretty much broken and it's not really very paranoid to consider anything secure.

    13. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "cultural Marxists"? hahahahaha oh my.

      please, tell us all about the DNC and Podesta, too. you've gotta make them rubles, I get it, cash is tight.

    14. Re:LOL by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Last year's antivirus? This happened two years ago.

    15. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who should be trusted? The CIA or Kapersky?

    16. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "when the boot is laced on the other side"

      Imagine a boot, lacing on a human foot forever.
      In Putin's Russia, boot laces you.

    17. Re:LOL by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Russia has one antivirus vendor they can leverage...
      The NSA has several, as well as OS vendors and many other software vendors...

      I'm sure the russians are making use of any situation which is to their advantage, but it's naive to think the NSA and other intelligence agencies aren't doing exactly the same.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    18. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Or as they say in my country, "SQUIRREL!"

      I'm not really that interested in network squirrels, or even urban squirrels.

    19. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Your response is literal FUD. You do understand that, right?

    20. Re:LOL by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      There's an old truism when it comes to security: the moment that you feel secure is the moment when you are the most vulnerable.

      No defense is impenetrable, and if you feel that yours are, it's very easy to overlook red flags that you've been penetrated.

    21. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Calling me names won't change the situation in any meaningful way.

    22. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! Trust no one!

      On linux when we run virus scanners for whatever reason, we run them in userspace.

      That said, if you're on a system that needs active protection from virus scanners, then avoiding the vendors with an enhanced risk profile seems obvious. You have to trust somebody in that situation, but yeah, don't trust them very much; be ready to change later when somebody else appears to be the least risky, because it changes over time.

      And avoid vendors outside your own country or allied countries. Obviously, because security products might all be tainted. The risk profile is not all equal. If you're in a place with no effective legal protections against your own government, then it doesn't matter what products you use you never had any computer security and never thought you did. If you live in a country with any significant level of citizen rights, then your domestic or allied security services are not threatening in the same ways that foreign ones are; and that remains true even when you have privacy or other civics complaints about the system.

    23. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Right, but that in no way implies that avoiding increased risks means you must be trusting something. You can be distrusting in general, and still be certain that some things can't be trusted.

      No defense is impenetrable. Yet use of purported defenses with conflicts of interest is itself a red flag.

    24. Re: LOL by poity · · Score: 1

      No one is making the claim that you should blindly trust the tribe on the other side of the mountain, but that those who allege that the current chief is the product, or even a pawn, of that other tribe need to have more evidence besides pointing to some wooden signs along the river.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    25. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kremlin shills and Correct The Record shills battling each other on a dying Linux nerd website for pocket change.

      Laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

    26. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Proof. I don't know what nonsense was said last week, nor do I like Kaspersky, but there is nothing here except vapid arguments that smell really bad. This is an example of WSJ peddling "conspiracy theory" and "anon sources" (I use Kaspersky's words), and I'm not that surprised people are falling for it. Disinformation campaigns have worked for both the US and the Russians.

      Note that I'm specifically _not_ defending Kaspersky here, I'm attacking the WSJ as untrustworthy and mouthpieces for the US government.

    27. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous source, no proof cited.

    28. Re:LOL by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The NSA could trivially show proof of a backdoor or sidechannel in a two year old PUBLIC binary without exposing any secrets. If it was there they'd show it.

      Ipso facto, it's not there ... fake news.

    29. Re:LOL by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It will not make you any less of an idiot.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    30. Re:LOL by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's not surprising that US media is singling out anything Russian for criticism. Remember when the French wouldn't support the US' 2003 invasion of Iraq? All of a sudden we had "freedom fries" and the bad guys in Hollywood movies spoke with crappy French accents for a few years after. Now it's Russia's turn because the middle classes are pissed off at the working classes for voting in Trump. USA, grow up and take responsibility for your electoral choices. Russia didn't elect Trump, you did!
      BTW, I remember looking into the efficacy of anti-virus software and finding out that in independent tests, the best one of the day only caught 85% of malware attacks. Then, there's the more recent stories of various well-known anti-virus software itself being vulnerable to attacks.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    31. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA really needs to start getting their act together.. if they continue to insist on

      *creating hardware and software backdoors in everything themselves,
      *forcing manufacturers to create hardware and software backdoors and
      *hiding vital information and exploiting it to make malware, spyware and other types of dangrous software,

      then they need to be A LOT better at watching their stuff.... Their stuff is very dangrous when leaked... the whole ransomware thing is a good example of just the START of the nightmare that NSA is indirektly responsible for being released upon the world

    32. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont list to him gwehir. Just another pharma head, koolade drinking, alt left nutter.

    33. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you murricans Stop inserting backdoors in the Software you peddle ?

      Then the while issue would cease to exist. There would be No Cyber crimes and No Virus Scanners.

    34. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing that CIA is trying to screw over its people and Kapersky is trying to screw of the CIA? The enemy of my enemy is not as much an enemy as it once was.

    35. Re:LOL by arth1 · · Score: 2

      As a former antivirus author, I suggest a third alternative:
      Don't trust your computer to any antivirus. You give these programs full access to your machine, and they become an attack vector as well as slowing down the machine.
      And it's not like they are going to stop zero day attacks anyhow, and that's the second biggest thing to worry about (after human gullibility).

    36. Re:LOL by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! Trust no one!

      Including the guy who says "Trust no one!", and including yourself.

      Especially yourself. When it comes to security, the person in charge of a system or a network is its worst enemy.

    37. Re:LOL by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, why then is the Senate and DoD ready to ban them? Surely, they don't have an axe to grind for Trump's election.

      Though, why would you spend U.S. tax dollars on a foreign product if there's a suitable product made at home?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    38. Re: LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the working class and the middle class separate now?

      I always thought of them as on and the same.

    39. Re: LOL by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      When the other tribe has been your enemy for decades, you don't need more evidence to decide that it's more risky to buy products from them than your own tribe. It may or may not be fact based, but it's still prudent.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    40. Re:LOL by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Nice hand waving. When has NSA ever publically announced any of it's findings? Get a clue.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    41. Re: LOL by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No one is making the claim that you should blindly trust the tribe on the other side of the mountain, but that those who allege that the current chief is the product, or even a pawn, of that other tribe need to have more evidence besides pointing to some wooden signs along the river.

      Um no. You don't trust everyone you pick up for sex, even though they me be as disease free as Jeebuz and pure as the driven snow.

      You wear that rubber because there are some folks out there who just might have an STD, and you don't say hey Russia hasn't been unequivocally proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a court of law in every country before you decide that you might want to think about not using Kaspersky's AV software.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    42. Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your advice.
      In your opinion, could a reasonably smart user get along without any antivirus in day-to-day work (i.e. only relying on Windows Defender and updates), or it is still better to install a dedicated antivirus?
      (Assume that the user doesn't give a crap about maintaining privacy vs state-level actors, only against the regular scammers).

    43. Re:LOL by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, with some simple precautions, you are reasonably safe.
      - Do not browse porn or humor sites with flash enabled or without an adblocker.
      - Do not open unsolicited e-mail attachments. Especially, don't treat the sender address as authentication - look for text that positively identifies that it's the real sender and why it was sent.
      - If you get a suspicious pop-up, don't click its close button, because it could be a visual overlay for the "install" action. Use ALT-F4 to close the browser.
      - If in Windows, go to Folder Options - View, and uncheck "Hide extensions for known file types". Then you will see that the attachment that looks like funnycat.jpg really is funnycat.jpg.exe

      Thing is, even with antivirus installed, most new infections will go straight past the AV and infect your PC. The reason is of course that those who write malware test it against the AV software first, and make changes until it passes. Then they have several days until the AV software recognizes the change, and they make another permutation. The net effect is that the AV software will scan enormous and ever-growing lists of signatures, and slow your system down more and more, while all new malware still gets through.

      An observant user, on the other hand, stops most new malware. Unless you're specifically targeted by a hacker, you're reasonably safe.

    44. Re:LOL by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Incidentally, you are being stupid by believing Kaspersky is any less trustworthy than their competitors.

      Do you mean trustworthy as a general attribute (probably more or less true, none of them picked up the Sony rootkit), or trustworthy to anyone in particular? I wouldn't trust Kaspersky for an installation with US government secrets, but I trust it as much as any other AV on my computer. If I'm to have spyware on my computer, I'd prefer Russian to US, since the Russians have a lot less potential interest in what I do, and have far less ability to hassle me than US authorities.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    45. Re:LOL by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You left out:

      - Do not browse sites with third-party ads with flash enabled or without an adblocker. My wife once got infected browsing the New York Times site, which fails badly to be either a porn or a humor site.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    46. Re:LOL by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't get your reasoning.

      I do little to annoy Russia, other than posting opinions on sites they sometimes troll, and having a friend who's blocked from entering Russia. Russians really can't do all that much to me without considerable effort.

      However, I normally have opinions that conflict with those of assorted government officials in the US, which gives them more reason to hassle me than any Russian official has. Moreover, it's not that difficult for a police officer or IRS auditor or some other official to give me a hard time. I don't expect to be picked on by government officials (I'm a male of northwestern European descent), but it's more of a concern than Russian intervention.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    47. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's where you're wrong, they sell access to you to criminal gangs, who steal your money.

      Domestic criminals have a much harder time getting that data; it doesn't seem to be even on the market to buy access here. In Russia they openly sell access to p0wned systems from any country not a Russian ally; in the US there is no such mainstream market.

      Yeah, if you're a criminal and you're in the US, then in that case you'd have a higher threat profile from the US government; but the vast majority of people worried about computer security are not criminals, but people trying to protect themselves against economic crime.

      When foreign criminals steal your money, it is well and truly gone. When US criminals steal your money, it might be gone, or they might have had to do it in a way that the bank ends up taking the loss. When foreign hackers with national backing let their organized crime control your computer, instead of regular "identity theft" where you can prove it wasn't you and eventually get the debt cleared, they control your computer and take control of your banking and run off with your money in a way that you can't recover it.

      People don't even understand what the threats are, and yet they're willing to argue about it anyways. Golly.

    48. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Make Pancakes Tennis Again!

    49. Re:LOL by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that it's likely that Kaspersky would be coerced by the Russian government into giving out information that they then sell to criminal gangs? Do you have evidence? It sounds far-fetched to me. If I'm going to worry about that possible breach of security, I have to worry about US AV companies, since some of them can get pretty shady, and any market in AV-generated information isn't going to be accessible only from Russia.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    50. Re:LOL by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anything about trusting me, instead I expressed ideas that you can use or not. Making use of ideas requires first understanding them though.

      What sort of nonsense would you have to be doing where trust of self would even come up as a security issue? Are you writing your own login code or something? Don't trust yourself, instead learn best practices about which parts to use stable libraries for.

    51. Re:LOL by arth1 · · Score: 1

      What sort of nonsense would you have to be doing where trust of self would even come up as a security issue?

      Anyone who writes code, or configures a computer, or add firewall rules, or pick programs to install should question whether they trust themselves too much, and whether a second and third set of eyes would be useful.

      We are easily blind to the problems we ourselves introduce, and tend to trust our own judgement without questioning. And when the brown stuff hits the rotating thing, the natural reaction is to place blame elsewhere, and forget that we shouldn't have trusted our own judgement.

  2. Idiot Contractor by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem here isn't Kaspersky and Russian hackers, they're just being opportunistic.

    The REAL problem here is a dumb @$$ contractor who stole classified information and brought it home.

    Why isn't the contractor, both company and employee, being punished for breach of secure information? Any other countries' spooks would want this info, including our allies.

    Ahh that's right, let's just take this as an opportunity to bash Russia some more while our real enemy China is cleaning out both our industrial trade and military secrets! /sarcasm

    1. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 0, Troll

      The problem here isn't Kaspersky and Russian hackers, they're just being opportunistic.

      The REAL problem here is a dumb @$$ contractor who stole classified information and brought it home.

      Why isn't the contractor, both company and employee, being punished for breach of secure information? Any other countries' spooks would want this info, including our allies.

      Ahh that's right, let's just take this as an opportunity to bash Russia some more while our real enemy China is cleaning out both our industrial trade and military secrets! /sarcasm

      Because of Hillary Clinton.... She E-mailed classified stuff around the planet on her personal E-mail server without so much as ROT 13 encryption... BUT.... James Comey decided that it wasn't a crime and announced to the world that he didn't think she could be charged because she had no intent to be careless.

      If Hills can, why not this contractor? After all, it wasn't their INTENT to share it with the Russians and they presumably didn't E-mail it to anybody.

      (Sarc off)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re: Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real enemy of world Peace is the U.S. MIC and their poodles Like Clinton and Bush. Just Look at who started the civil wars in syria and iraq and lybia.

    3. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The REAL problem here is a dumb @$$ contractor who stole classified information and brought it home.

      Why isn't the contractor, both company and employee, being punished for breach of secure information?

      Oh, don't worry, he is.

      Uncle Booz on the other hand...not so much.

    4. Re: Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's good for the gander is good for the goose?

    5. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you have a copy of the terms of the contract that dictates what the contractor is and is not allowed to do? Can you provide information on relevant law governing information access? Can you cite what level of clearances are involved?

      From TFA:

      "An NSA contractor brought home highly classified documents that detailed how the U.S. penetrates foreign computer networks and defends against cyberattacks. The contractor used Kaspersky antivirus on his home computer...

      As you can see in the above text, I've highlighted the areas that might help pull your head out of your ass.

      "Home" computers are not something that is authorized for storing or transmitting highly classified information. Not to mention "home" building codes lacking SCIF-level TEMPEST protections. Regardless of my lack of access to specific contractual details, I'd say there's about a 0.0000001% chance that this bullshit was authorized in any way.

    6. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contract doesn't have to spell out that contractors are not allowed to take classified information home. They're NEVER allowed to this unless they have a certified carrier letter, in which case it has to be secured. Connecting it to a network violates pretty much everything.

    7. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, it's all spelled out in the NISPOM:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The most relevant section is Chapter 5:
      http://www.dss.mil/documents/o...

      Nobody can take classified material home, ever. Nobody can put classified material onto an unapproved computer, ever. These are not things that change from contract to contract.

    8. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 0

      Because of Hillary Clinton.... She E-mailed classified stuff around the planet on her personal E-mail server without so much as ROT 13 encryption... BUT.... James Comey decided that it wasn't a crime and announced to the world that he didn't think she could be charged because she had no intent to be careless.

      If Hills can, why not this contractor? After all, it wasn't their INTENT to share it with the Russians and they presumably didn't E-mail it to anybody.

      (Sarc off)

      I think that's "Jack off".

      Show me where Hillary actually mailed known classified material using her server. Oh right, you can't. Things that she created (all 7 emails, IIRC) were classified after the fact. The total of 100 or so emails with classified or sensitive data mostly originated from the unclassified State Dept email system, and were not originated by her. So Comey came to the correct conclusion, even if his getting there was just about the worst path possible and likely was the key straw that gave us our current disaster.

      I understand you hate Hillary, I don't like her either, but at least stick to facts.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this information was truly classified, there is no question that he was not allowed to store it on his personal computer, and he would have been aware of this. This is covered in security clearance 101, even without a clearance it is covered in the annual Cyber Awareness training that all people with access to DoD and Intelligence networks must review (you can take it yourself if you want).

      I agree it is not the main story by any means, likely some person or another is always doing this and most of the time it is never discovered.

    10. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      The terms of the contract can't violate federal law about classified material... the only question is if the contractor's training was deficient or if he willfully ignored the rules and laws.

    11. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here it is: DD Form 441, Department of Defense Security Agreement. That was trivially easy to find. I've included the fine print below, in case anyone doesn't feel like clicking through to a US military website.

      WITNESSETH THAT:
      WHEREAS, the Government has in the past purchased or may
      in the future purchase from the Contractor supplies or services,
      which are required and necessary to the national security of the
      United States; or may invite bids or request quotations on proposed
      contracts for the purchase of supplies or services, which are
      required and necessary to the national security of the United
      States; and
      WHEREAS, it is essential that certain security measures be
      taken by the Contractor prior to and after being accorded access to
      classified information; and
      WHEREAS, the parties desire to define and set forth the
      precautions and specific safeguards to be taken by the Contractor
      and the Government in order to preserve and maintain the security
      of the United States through the prevention of improper disclosure
      of classified information, sabotage, or any other acts detrimental to
      the security of the United States;
      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of
      the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto agree as
      follows.
      Section I - SECURITY CONTROLS
      (A) The Contractor agrees to provide and maintain a system of
      security controls within the organization in accordance with the
      requirements of the "National Industrial Security Program Operating
      Manual," DoD 5220.22-M (hereinafter called the Manual) attached
      hereto and made a part of this agreement, subject, however, (i) to
      any revisions of the Manual required by the demands of national
      security as determined by the Government, notice of which shall be
      furnished to the Contractor, and (ii) to mutual agreements entered
      into by the parties in order to adapt the Manual to the Contractor's
      business and necessary procedures thereunder.

      (B) The Government agrees that
      it shall indicate when necessary,
      by security classification (TOP SECRET, SECRET, or
      CONFIDENTIAL), the degree of importance to the national security
      of information pertaining to supplies, services, and other matters to
      be furnished by the Contractor to the Government or by the
      Government to the Contractor, and the Government shall give
      written notice of such security classification to the Contractor and of
      any subsequent changes thereof; provided, however, that matters
      requiring security classification will be assigned the least restricted
      security classification consistent with proper safeguarding of the
      matter concerned, since overclassification causes unnecessary
      operational delays and depreciates the importance of correctly
      classified matter. Further, the Government agrees that when
      Atomic Energy information is involved it will, when necessary,
      indicate by a marking additional to the classification marking that
      the information is "RESTRICTED DATA." The "Department of
      Defense Contract Security Classification Specification" (DD Form
      254) is the basic document by which classification, regrading, and
      declassification specifications are documented and conveyed to the
      Contractor.
      (C) The Government agrees, on written

    12. Re:Idiot Contractor by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a crime
      As Comey noted, all the Top Secret was from PUBLIC SOURCES (newspapers).
      The mere fact it was in the public domain did not reduce the classification
      That said, unless you can prove she KNEW it was classified material, from the PUBLIC SOURCES, no case, no crime

    13. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Our real enemy"

      I know you're trying to make a point, but what is my motivation to see China as an enemy?

      The idea that I should view a nation state as a foe is idiotic. Our country alone has a divisive rhetoric problem and is barely on the same page itself. So of course we must teleport an alien into Times Square, spray paint the Chinese flag on the remains, and then all focus on eliminating them?

      Sure, go on, peddle the economic nationalism mantra of the tube of braunschweiger that is Steve Bannon.

      "The *real* enemy!"

      You're just as bought and sold into an emotionally loaded ideology as those peddling the Russia angle, or white supremacy.

      Continue to be unimpressed with the so-called "smart people" in the tech world. Good at computers, which should be expected since they use them a lot. But really a whole of "more of the same banal cultural bullshit blabber" otherwise.

    14. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me where Hillary actually mailed known classified material using her server. Oh right, you can't.

      Show me where in the law one must know that classified info is classified to be guilty of mishandling it. Oh right, you can't.

    15. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite: If you are the recipient of classified information, marked or unmarked, emailed to you, you have a responsibility to report it. Not doing so is a violation - probably not a jailable violation, but your next security briefing would be uncomfortable to say the least, and you probably would be denied anything above flat SECRET clearance in the future. Back in my classified days, I once received (from a government lab employee) a series of SECRET, oh, lets call them numbers. The guy obviously didn't mark them as such, and he even split them between two emails because he knew that the two emails together contained classified information, but separately they were unclassified. Fun fact: splitting a classified item between two emails specifically to avoid classification procedures is a no-no. I reported the incident. He was fired. My computer was seized off my desk for sanitation which took three days. The email server was scrubbed, but I reported it so quickly no backups were impacted, so that made scrubbing significantly easier.

      Your next question would likely be: how do you know it's classified if it isn't marked? Answer: you make it your job to know. You work in the field, and you come to know what smells like a classified fact or figure. There are also security classified guides to help if you're not sure. And I admit, sure, one email, a hazy classified thing that you read quickly and slips by absolutely possible. But 100 emails (your number, I thought it was a little larger), that's willful disregard and negligence. If I had done it, probably not jail, but certainly no more clearances in my future.

      I also seem to recall (too disinterested to look it up because this is all in the distant past), I believe what Comey said was not that what she did was not illegal, but that no one would prosecute her for it. Of course, not - she was Hillary Freaking Clinton, the likely next President of the US. That's like saying, hey, I'm pretty sure this is a loaded handgun I have here, but I can't seem to find anyone willing to put it against their temple and pull the trigger to test that theory.

    16. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Moron, here's the deal, you are not allowed to do government work on private computers. It is the fucking law and anyone with a clearance has to sign documents saying they are aware of this... right after they are told to read the document which is provided to them to read before they sign. There is a long list of punishments that can be levied. it is normal for people to be asked if they are aware that doing work on home computers is illegal before they sign so as to ensure they know this!

      Stop being obstructionist. Just because you are too stupid to google the answers yourself and instead state YOUR IGNORANCE as some sort of proof favoring your argument, think. Just for a minute, use that soggy mass between your ears.

    17. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Because of Hillary Clinton.... She E-mailed classified stuff around the planet on her personal E-mail server without so much as ROT 13 encryption... BUT.... James Comey decided that it wasn't a crime and announced to the world that he didn't think she could be charged because she had no intent to be careless.

      If Hills can, why not this contractor? After all, it wasn't their INTENT to share it with the Russians and they presumably didn't E-mail it to anybody.

      (Sarc off)

      Show me where Hillary actually mailed known classified material using her server. Oh right, you can't. (snip)

      I understand you hate Hillary, I don't like her either, but at least stick to facts.

      I believe your facts are a bit behind the truth. Comey's guys found E-mail MARKED classified which Hills sent/received. You need to read that again... The content carried portion marks that indicated it was classified. What's worse, it was literally cut and pasted from a classified document into an unclassified E-mail.... (Perhaps not by Hillary, but by SOMEBODY, and that means classified was improperly put on an unclassified system..)

      Hillary claims that she didn't see and understand what these marks where, but the FACT here is that she DID send classified information which she SHOULD have recognized as such because it was portion marked. She was trained on this stuff as a pre-condition of receiving her clearance, if she was paying attention, she would have known. I don't believe she's that stupid, she knew what it was, I believe she just didn't care.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,' - Email from Hillary Clinton, June 17, 2011

    19. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, clearly you didn't read the WSJ article wherein the OVER 30,000 emails she sent had a HIGH PERCENTAGE of classified emails mixed with them, or the part about her staffers being told to scrub classification from emails

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html

      So, in short, fuck you you lying piece of shit.

    20. Re:Idiot Contractor by fafalone · · Score: 1

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      Politifact isn't exactly a right-wing source either. Both sides like to ignore or forget facts that don't fit the agenda.

      And perhaps there would have been more, had she not instructed people to *remove* those markings:

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/
      CBS isn't a right-wing source either.

      Look, she was still a better choice than Trump by lightyears, but it does no one any good to continually pretend the e-mail issue wasn't illegal conduct she got a pass for. Comey's conclusion was that it was ok because she "lacked intent", but the law had no intent requirement, and other people have been prosecuted despite similarly lacking intent (the submarine selfie guy comes to mind). Come on.

    21. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Ah, but you forget that she sent/received content with portion marks. Public Sources do not generally portion mark their material. That stuff came from classified documents, was marked as classified, and should have been recognized by Hillary (and the rest of those reading the E-mails) as classified.

      You are stopping at story #3 out of #4...

      Story 1: I didn't use my private E-mail server for work E-mails, it was just wedding planning and Yoga schedules.

      Story 2: I used it for work, but only for non classified stuff and only because I didn't want to have multiple devices just to receive E-mail.

      Story 3: I used it for work, but didn't send anything that was marked as classified. It was all public information that was retroactively declared classified.

      Story 4: I did send and receive Classified, some of it was obviously portion marked, but I didn't see that at the time....

      Hillary has misstated the truth multiple times here and had to revise her story as more facts came to light.... Comey clearly said as much.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    22. Re:Idiot Contractor by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      That said, unless you can prove she KNEW it was classified material, from the PUBLIC SOURCES, no case, no crime

      That's not true at all. In fact, some ideas are even born classified. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).

      Also, if a newspaper reporter gets classified documents and writes a story about it, FOR MOST CASES, no crime on their part, and they knew it was classified. The person handing it over, whether they "knew it was classified" or not is the liable party. Otherwise the law would be completely unenforceable. Imagine if you could get out of murder by saying "I didn't know murder was illegal."

    23. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You can read the entire thing here That's as official as it gets. Now, you made the claim that she knowingly sent at the time classified email. We'll await your response....

      And those markings mean nothing (much like the ones in the FBI link above) once they are from a supposedly insecure source (e.g., the unclassified State Dept email server)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    24. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I clearly read the FBI report It's clear that you did not.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    25. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      The summary is this:

      In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information. Most of these emails, however, did not contain markings clearly delineating their status. ... About 2,000 additional emails have been retroactively classified, or up-classified, meaning the information was not classified when it was first emailed.

      So, classified information is funny stuff. A "fact" can be classified, but only if it's stated in relation to another fact. Guidance states that if something is classified, it is better to never mention it unless its absence makes it notable. (e.g., for instance, a series of numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 where 5 might be classified in some relation to, say, number of x's) And yes, writing publicly releasable documents when you hold a clearance can be a real challenge.

      But, back to your CBS reference and so forth - 2 document had markings, but didn't actually contain classified material, this again just proves that just because it's stamped with a classification doesn't make it so. And finally, her telling her subordinate to send the talking points insecure doesn't mean they sent classified info that way, and it even states that in your link. Take the above example about 5.... If I send that same "classified" information paragraph, removing the number and relation from the text, it's no longer classified, much like those redacted FBI documents

      I still hold that her having a private email server was stupid and against general common sense security policy as practiced within at least large portions of the government. She should have known better, as should have Rice and Powell before her, but especially Powell, who has 0 excuses.

      And don't get me wrong, she was still a terrible choice, just less terrible than the one we got through a fluke of an ancient system designed to overcome the limitations of technology at that time. In fact, only her, out of all the possible other dem candidates and quite a few republicans could have lost. That's how terrible she was as a candidate. Don't sugar coat that one.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    26. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Seriously? The markings mean nothing?

      You are either daft or just flat don't know what you are talking about. What do you suppose those things in () in front of each paragraph actually are and what do they mean? Those are portion marked. Here is some material you need to read: https://www.archives.gov/files...

      FIRST: The FBI isn't going to just post the E-mail's in question unless they got them declassified. That would be mishandling classified and SOME folks in the government actually try to follow the rules.

      SECOND: The portion marking on the paragraphs DOES means something to those trained in what they mean and Hillary was trained as a condition of getting her clearance.

      Finally... Did you actually READ page 2 of the report you provided the link to? The first paragraph makes it pretty clear that Hillary had some pretty sensitive stuff on her various E-mail servers and devices... Stuff your average person would have been strung up for mishandling..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    27. Re: Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well can you blame him? I mean we seem to be at a shortage of reasonable prosecutors as of late in this area so why not take it home?

    28. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it doesn't matter in the end.

      Hillary is your typical ultra entitled "leader". Like many "leaders", she followed the Golden Rule. "He/she who has the gold, makes the rules". Which can also be appended with the following: "Since I make the rules, they don't apply to me."

      And of course... The worshippers of said "leaders" will always make excuses for them. Relentlessly. Even when it's blindingly obvious time to cut these particular "leaders" loose.

    29. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Challenge accepted.

      18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information>

      "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information..."

      [Emphasis mine]

    30. Re: Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got yourself a -1 there boy. That'll larn you to badmouth Russia round these parts.

    31. Re: Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bobbied is a Krembot. Save your breath, there's no point in arguing, nothing will satisfy him.

    32. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with everything you say about what should have happened, but I've worked in highly secure environments involving hundreds of Government employees, officials, and contractors. They'd never get any work done if they followed all of the rules.

      The absolute torrent of emails and other kinds of documents that people have to deal with pretty much requires them to take shortcuts. I can't imagine Clinton and her staff were any different. Emails get very cursory examination, attachments don't get opened, etc. You read the the subject and the first line or two and maybe respond, or maybe not, or maybe you make a phone call. Most emails get ignored.

      So, yeah, I can believe she never saw the markings. Should she have? In a perfect world, with a bigger staff, with technological support, maybe. But "string up for mishandling"? I've never seen that happen. Discipline and instruction, yes. Earnings not to make the same mistakes, yes. But punishment only when the mishandling was done knowingly and willfully.

    33. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did just read page 2, and I have no idea what you are talking about. The first paragraph, which is partially redacted, and so somewhat difficult to interpret, seems to imply that Clinton intended for Diplomatic Security to handle classified info, like you would expect. What are YOU talking about?

    34. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1
      Bunch of emotional hysterical blah blah deleted.

      Finally... Did you actually READ page 2 of the report you provided the link to? The first paragraph makes it pretty clear that Hillary had some pretty sensitive stuff on her various E-mail servers and devices... Stuff your average person would have been strung up for mishandling..

      I actually did read it. I even summarized it (You may want to read that link). We have no idea what the info was, as it's redacted. We know there were email chains between unclassified systems, which means there should be no classified info on them. We also know that only a handful of emails with classified info originated from Clinton, and that none with markings did so. BTW, you know those pages come with markings, right? And if there is no classified info on it, it's not classified? It's actually misclassified or over classified.

      As for your comment about average people, note that Powell was the first to use private email services, and he should have definitely known better considering his positions through the 90s. And where's your pitchfork for him, or Rice, for that matter. They're either all guilty, or none.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    35. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I believe you looked at DOCUMENT 2 page 1.. Look at document 1 page 2 where it discusses the 2,000+ classified E-mail they found. This stuff was highly classified, compartmented stuff. Stuff you don't find in the public domain, ever....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    36. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      She just didn't care. It's not that hard to keep things separated, it's a pain in the butt, but doable if you have half a care about what you are doing.

      Hillary didn't care. She either didn't care enough to educate herself in the proper protection of our nation's most sensitive information, or she didn't care enough to protect it. Take your pick... Either way, it reflects badly on her.

      My guess is she knew what this stuff was. It's not like she's a novice with this stuff. She's held clearances off and on for years. She simply didn't care... And let's not forget the *real* issue here.... Using a personal E-mail server for official government business? Really? That's illegal and she KNEW that too. After all, she sent a memo reprimanding one of her ambassadors on this very subject. It was the FOIA request from some right wing group that caught this and sued her to find these E-mail's...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    37. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You might want to reread that yourself. That was 2000+ emails that contained information that was classified after the fact. Also, BTW, out of those 2000+, only 1 was later classified secret. The rest all had the lowest possible classification, confidential. This is stuff you find every day, that thousands of gov workers and contractors know and have, many even without security clearances. Because the information is not magically classified by fact. It is classified by context and relationships. Which is why classified material is such a pain to work with and once you have clearance it's better to just talk about sports or your neighbors kids or something else completely unrelated to work, because even who you saw or met today could be classified, whether you know it or not.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    38. Re: Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is your criticism of Trump disclosing classified info to the Russian ambassador? Announcing movements of nuclear subs to NK?
      Hillary doesn't matter anymore. She lost Trump is the one in power and the one that needs watching.

      But but but her emails!

    39. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck you

      Suddenly it's OK for Russia and a software vendor I've chosen to cruise through my drives.

      Set aside the NSA content part and it's STILL A SHIT DECISION by Russians to target another nations citizens.

      But not a shock since we already knew they do it, all intel agencies do.

      And NSA has suffered many leaks, so it's not a shock those happen either.

      This whole thing, from either angle is a bullshit story. But you dipshits are easily distracted for one side or the other.

      Not realizing you're all just blindly battling for one nation state or another that have obvious histories of not giving a fuck about their citizens or any others citizens as long as there is something to be gained by indifference.

    40. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ahh that's right, let's just take this as an opportunity to bash Russia some more while our real enemy China is cleaning out both our industrial trade and military secrets! /sarcasm"

      Ah, right deflection, sign of the pro-Russian spin machine. As if the US can't walk and chew at the same time. Russia deserves to be bashed as much as they have, every time, and those are completely separate to the wrongs China does do.

      Kasperksy had known connections suspected for a long time, and they've been repeatedly fleshed out. I'm not saying the US doesn't do the same thing with their security companies, as well as with companies like Coca-Cola and now the big internet companies, but hell, you're a n idiot if you believe Russia doesn't deserve to be bashed when they repeatedly deny involvement and then proof comes up showing the level of their involvement. And no, I'm not talking about Trump here.

      btw, we gave China the basis of much of their progress. We gave them favored nation status. Entrance into international trade and policy groups. Favorable IP exchange, including our allies (chonda's are made from legally imported Japanese motor dies as part of a program both sides willingly participated in). You can thank GM for being a siphon of patents that touch not only automobile, but also military inventions from related companies and suppliers. Hell, we even gave China their nuclear, space, and ballistic missile tech because US conservatives had their head up their asses with one of the JPL's founders, who became like a godfather to all those military backed programs.

      Most of the shit we deal with the Russians and China are legacy from bad policies set during WWII and the few years after. Russian enclave in Europe that became a short range nuclear missile launch point. With China, pick the right side next time, or at least don't sit idly by. You've lost or stalemated on 2 wars since with them, and you're still talking "real enemy" when they've outmaneuvered you repeatedly--maybe some day, you'll get the message its more about them holding us at bay, and using your idiocy against you, like you believe you are doing or had done to multiple countries in the past.

      China outmaneuvered you for decades. You're only noticing now, from moves they made in the late 80s and early 90s on the economic front, which is the highest level a novice would recognize, when they've already stabilized the more base military and fundamental indsutrial/tech bases.

      Whatever you decide now, you aren't coming from a position of real power and influence. The economic turning point came 15 years ago. Hell, you probably don't realize that when you buy gasoline, you indirectly putting money in their coffers; you fucked over their contracts, fought a war, went essentially into massive debt and stupidly paid that debt with a future loan which is accumulative massive interest rate, all the while China established new contracts and economic ties in areas you were bombing.

      China built a new highway and train system. You couldn't even upgrade your highway system to increase flow because of state sovereignty and conservative budgetary crap and corporate payouts, and you certainly can't build a train system worth a damn, much less have the money either way to fund either.

      Real enemy? Like xiangqi is to checkers maybe. You've got a leader that states publicly that PR is an island surrounded by lots and lots of water. Put in place by Russia or not, he's there, so you've got him against China--you really think he wins against Xi, who just pulled off 2 political coups over the course of months he planned at least 2 years in advance?

      Damn you're stupid.

    41. Re:Idiot Contractor by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > Nobody can take classified material home, ever. Nobody can put classified material onto an unapproved computer, ever. These are not things that change from contract to contract.

      Well, unless your name ends with Clinton and it's only classified pictures of North Korea... which we know because we have the emails where they were trying to spin that with their political hacks and they were worried that part would bite them :)

    42. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      She just didn't care.

      I see you've taken up mind-reading as a vocation also.

      It's not that hard to keep things separated, it's a pain in the butt, but doable if you have half a care about what you are doing.

      You would know this how? It's apparent from your postings the closest you've ever gotten to classified data is Hillary's emails.

      Hillary didn't care.

      Repeating an assertion doesn't make you clairvoyant nor correct.

      She either didn't care enough to educate herself in the proper protection of our nation's most sensitive information, or she didn't care enough to protect it.

      Oh my, I tell you three times... sort of?

      Take your pick... Either way, it reflects badly on her.

      My guess is she knew what this stuff was. It's not like she's a novice with this stuff. She's held clearances off and on for years. She simply didn't care...

      There it is - three times true.

      And let's not forget the *real* issue here.... Using a personal E-mail server for official government business? Really? That's illegal and she KNEW that too. After all, she sent a memo reprimanding one of her ambassadors on this very subject. It was the FOIA request from some right wing group that caught this and sued her to find these E-mail's...

      So, you're going to go after Powell, Rice, Jared and whomever else was using personal or trump org emails for government business? You're going to be one busy fellow. I look forward to your outrage being posted. After all that, provided you have any energy left, you can hype yourself up on all the personal (non-gov) Russian contacts in the Trump administration, just in the past 3 years. Enjoy.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    43. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Oh yea.. Here comes the Powel did it and Clinton just forwarded stuff dodges... I can tell, there is no point in trying to move you forward here or correct your facts... She made deplorable mistakes though lack of caring and acted like the rules didn't apply to her, what other folks did is immaterial to her problem.

      Give it up, she lost the election likely because of all this hoopla if truth be told. Hoopla she brought on herself, but still won't admit... But that's a whole other debate...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    44. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yea, I don't know anything at all about handling classified information... Of course I could claim to have various clearances for 50 years but this is the internet, I could claim anything about myself and you'd not know the differance.

      This "other folks did it" is a dodge. No they didn't, not with classified information, not to this extent and certainly they didn't lie about having done it. In both cases they provided access so the archives could be made in accordance with the law. Clinton? Not so much...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    45. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is NO SUCH THING as "Classified after the fact".
      Documents are not classified. Information is classified. Documents that contain classified information are supposed to be marked as such, so that people can know how to handle them. Any unmarked document is not unclassified, it just isn't marked.
      You are trying to excuse the illegal behavior of Clinton and her staff by claiming that they compounded their mishandling of classified information by also failing to properly label their classified documents (another offense). The investigation identified over 2000 documents that had not been correctly labeled to indicate the level of classification of the information they contained. But that information was classified the entire time.

      Next, CONFIDENTIAL is not the lowest level of classification, that would be UNCLASSIFIED. CONFIDENTIAL means that disclosure would cause damage to US national security if disclosed, and that no one without both a clearance AND Need To Know is allowed to see it. There are entire books (called 'classification guides') published about how to determine what information is classified and at what level. These guides are the source that determines what facts are 'magically' classified vs what isn't. And if you work with classified information, it is your job to know the rules and obey them.

      Finally, there is NO ONE who handles classified information without a security clearance - at least, not legally.

      Source: 21 years in government information security and deep familiarity with DCID 6/3 and ICD 503.

    46. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Read all you want, but the fact remains that this issue with Clinton cost her the presidency... Maybe she made a mistake or was actually criminally negligent, but the facts are that she tried to deflect this issue by down playing it and was forced to admit to more and more serious infractions as the facts came to light. Had she come clean when this story first came to light, she'd likely be president right now.

      And I don't agree with your characterization of her e-mails and their contents as not being serious. It was deadly serious in that it likely resulted in the exposure of highly classified information to the world and the FBI report indicates as much. There may not have been a lot of highly sensitive stuff there, but there was SOME, enough to do grave damage to the USA's interests. She tried to minimize it, down play it, and claim that it wasn't a big deal. This opened her up to Trump's "Can you Trust her?" line of attack, which ultimately was very likely to have swayed enough voters to make him president.

      If I was you, I'd cut her loose and stop defending her. She's not a viable candidate for dog catcher anymore and will spend the rest of her days writing and selling books or making speeches like her husband. She's almost literally a dead horse...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    47. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Facts aren't dodges. Your biases are showing. It's fine if "my guys" do it, but you'll take the other side to task. Where's your outrage for Trump disclosing classified info to the Russians? You're like a bulldog on a bone, ignoring the steak right next to you.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    48. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There is NO SUCH THING as "Classified after the fact".

      You're clueless.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    49. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Yea, I don't know anything at all about handling classified information... Of course I could claim to have various clearances for 50 years but this is the internet, I could claim anything about myself and you'd not know the differance.

      I think that's about the truest thing you've posted.

      This "other folks did it" is a dodge. No they didn't, not with classified information, not to this extent and certainly they didn't lie about having done it. In both cases they provided access so the archives could be made in accordance with the law. Clinton? Not so much...

      You're making baseless assumptions. It's not a dodge. It's a fact - they used private email accounts for government business. 2 were predecessors for Hillary, and bunch are in the current administration that yelled "email email email". "Hypocritical" is the kindest thing that can be said for any position that doesn't take the current group to task.

      Clinton didn't lie about using a personal server, at least not to my recollection. However, that aside, how do you know what Powell, for example, did or did not send? By his own admission, all 100K+ emails are "gone". We only have his word. AFAIK, Rice's emails are similarly gone. Without a dump and investigation by an appropriate authority who can determine the classifications both at time sent and post sending, similar to what happened with Clinton's emails, would you be able to make any assertion at all about how badly those predecessors screwed up. Considering their positions, it will be almost impossible for them not to have done something inadvertently.

      In case you haven't figured it out - I think they all stink. I just find your particular brand of smearing an individual you bear obvious ill will for pretty disingenuous. I picture you being #3 in the lynch mob, cheering on the slaughter, not having the balls to be the leader.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    50. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      She lied.... Well, perhaps she didn't care enough to find out the actual truth and didn't remember so she invented a story to spin out of the problem.... But her story changed over the 18 months it was an active news story and she had to modify her story on multiple occasions as new facts came to light. I've outlined this before.. She went from "It wasn't used for work.." To "It was only for convince and didn't have classified information on it." to "It didn't have anything MARKED classified on it" to where we are today.

      Her story had to change as the available facts changed. Instead of coming out and finding out what the truth was and admitting to it, she spun and sputtered, changing her story with every new wave of facts came to light. That's all on Hillary. She obviously either didn't care, at all, about this, or had something to hide. Either way it looked bad for her..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    51. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL, and you are defending the gal who's getting written a speeding ticket for doing 20 over by saying "Look at all those other folks doing 5 over! What about them?" I'm not dismissing them, I'm just pointing out that it's not a defense of what Clinton did.

      Clinton either lied or simply didn't care enough to know the truth before she made specific public assertions of her innocence to the press. She then had to change her story, not once, not twice, but four times.... It cost her the Whitehouse and almost got her charged with multiple felonies... Face it, She acted stupidly.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    52. Re:Idiot Contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who's ever worked around classified material will tell you that what bobbied has been saying here is accurate. People have lost their access to classified for much much less...myself included, when I had a late payment on a credit account that I'd cosigned for my daughter, and my credit rating took a hit. It took me months to get reinstated. Portion marking is something that everyone knows about, and for HRC to claim otherwise was a flat out lie. And even when things aren't marked, you've been briefed on what is and isn't classified...no markings doesn't make something any less classified, and she knew that as well. And she went on to leverage that lack of public knowledge on the topic. Had she come clean at the start, she might have taken less of a hit, but every cleared person I know, and I know quite a few, were shocked at the level of bullshit coming from her and her campaign on the topic.

    53. Re:Idiot Contractor by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The problem here isn't Kaspersky and Russian hackers, they're just being opportunistic.

      The REAL problem here is a dumb @$$ contractor who stole classified information and brought it home.

      Why isn't the contractor, both company and employee, being punished for breach of secure information? Any other countries' spooks would want this info, including our allies.

      Ahh that's right, let's just take this as an opportunity to bash Russia some more while our real enemy China is cleaning out both our industrial trade and military secrets! /sarcasm

      It is possible to have two problems at the same time. In fact, that usually how disasters happen. The contractor needs denutted for what he did. But that doesn't mean that software designd to compromise a person's computer is supposed to be applauded as Hey, Everone's doing it, so it's all good.

      That isn't how the game works regardless of what you think. Contractor? At best a dumbass, at worst a leaker or actual spy. Kaspersky? Well everyone doing it or not, they were caught. And "Everyone does it" isn't a very good defense.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    54. Re:Idiot Contractor by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The legal treatment is different based on whether you mishandled classified information as a conscious act or not. (The law may not distinguish, but people who don't intentionally mishandle it are not prosecuted.) This guy almost certainly had to go through some procedures to get classified material to his home computer, and that suggests intention.

      It's possible that the guy was not cleared to handle classified information, and therefore did not break the law, but in that case he should have had no access, and whoever gave him access almost certainly committed a felony.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    55. Re:Idiot Contractor by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Actually, what Comey said is that people who did what she did weren't prosecuted. In my research, that seems to be correct. What Clinton did is normally handled administratively. It may result in temporary or indefinite loss of clearance, or being fired, and is probably a career-limiting move.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    56. Re:Idiot Contractor by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Clinton screwed up. She did nothing that warrants prosecution, or would have gotten anyone else prosecuted.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re:Idiot Contractor by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      I discussed all the evidence of intent back here with full citations, including the entire Congressional hearing on the subject.

      In Clinton's case, we have an email between her & Colin Powell discussing how to cheat the system. It's hard for me to read this and not think that either person knew exactly what they were doing.

      C06125520 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016

      Re: Question
      From: Colin Powell [redacted] [RELEASE IN PART B6]
      To: Hillary Clinton hr15@att.blackberry.net B6
      Subject: Re: Question

      I didn't have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

      Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.

      However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it is governmend and your are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Readingi about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saaying much and not using systems that captured the data.

      You will find DS driving you crazy if you let them. They had Maddy tied up in knots. I refused to let them live in my house or build a place on my property. They found an empty garage half a block away. On weekends, I drove my beloved cars around town without them following me. I promised I would have a phone and not be gone more than an hour or two at Tysons or the hardware store. They hated it and asked me to sign a letter relieving them of responsibility if I got whacked while doing that. I gladly did. Spontaneity was my security. They wanted to have two to three guys follow me around the building all the time. I said if they were doing their job guarding the place, they didn't need to follow me. I relented and let one guy follow me one

      [REVIEW AUTHORITY: Geoffrey Chapman, Senior Reviewer]

      UNCLA

    58. Re:Idiot Contractor by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Exactly what's wrong about this email? Powell and Clinton are discussing how to use their personal devices, which appear to be against security protocol, not the law. Powell warns Clinton that a device that has official government business on it could be classified as something having official documents, and subject to that law. Powell describes how he fought with security restrictions. I see no mention of classified documents or classifications. I see no mention of violating the law. (During both Powell's and Clinton's tenure, it was legal for the Secretary of State to use a private email server for official business. That law was changed about a year after Clinton left the State Department.)

      Did you mean to post something else, or were you hoping I wouldn't read it thoroughly?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    59. Re:Idiot Contractor by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Did you read? Hmm? THE MATERIAL CAME FROM PUBLIC SOURCES
      Therefore, unless she KNEW it was classified...get it Trumpian?

    60. Re:Idiot Contractor by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Yes, she did
      And they were all stamped CONFIDENTIAL (c)
      So like I said, all the TOP SECRET was from public sources, said the FBI confirmed by Comey

    61. Re:Idiot Contractor by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      If I was you, I'd cut her loose and stop defending her.

      Thank goodness you're not. I'm not sure I'd like the smell where your head's at. And I'm not defending her, you think I am, which only shows everyone else how clueless you are. All I'm saying is stick with the facts. You seem unable to do that. I'll leave you to rut in your sty now.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    62. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Yes, she did And they were all stamped CONFIDENTIAL (c)

      Which is enough to validate my claim that she sent and received classified information on her private unclassified E-mail server which was MARKED as classified.

      Clinton denied (at various points) all of the following:

      1. She used her private server for work (She did, in violation of State Department policy and federal record keeping laws).

      2. She send and received classified information on her private unclassified E-mail system. (She did this too).

      3. She sent and received material that was MARKED classified on this private unclassified system. (When she provably did)

      4. The information on this system was exposed to our enemies. (Which seems likely to be true by the FBI, but not provable with the information we have been able to recover.)

      So she broke the spirit and letter of two major statutes and has likely exposed information that was classified. Further, she lied about all of this and was forced to progressively change her public statements on this activity, which isn't a crime per se, but does speak to her willingness to stretch the truth to stay in power, and the public outcry over it was likely responsible for turning enough voters away to cost her the election.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    63. Re:Idiot Contractor by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      And, as is well established by the FBI, the (c) mark was confused with the COPYWRITE mark just as I said, thus, to the best of HER KNOWLEDGE, she spoke the truth and committed no crime.
      Just like I said
      Looking for an excuse to hate Hillary?
      Try again! DUH!

    64. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I am just looking for a reason to not like Hills... Actually, I didn't like her policies or her continual lying about this and other things.

      But you have to admit, I'm not alone. There are a LOT of folks who dislike the Clinton's political views and propensity to be stretchers of the truth to paraphrase Mark Twain. Bill got sanctioned and lost his law license for lying under oath while in office. He got himself impeached too. Hillary participated in the covering up of Bill's indiscretions and didn't bat an eye about having to launch personal attacks on her husband's accusers, not because they were lying, but because it hurt Bill's and her's political futures. You see it's all about power with her and the money that comes with that power.

      However, I never would make the mistake to believe that Hillary or Bill are stupid people, backwood hicks from Arkansas or any other such nonsense. They are both quite bright and very astute political players, Hillary more so than Bill even. As much as I don't like her policy or politics, I have never believed Hillary didn't have the ability or intellect necessary to do her various jobs, I just don't like her politics and I don't trust what she says because she has a history of lying.

      So now, we come to this E-mail thing that Hillary really messed up on. You want to excuse Hillary by using a "she didn't know better" or worse "She wasn't paying close enough attention" to what was going on. She's not that stupid. She got the training, she knew what the marks where and what they mean, so I don't believe for a second she was just unaware of the nature of the information she was sending on unclassified systems. I DO however, believe that she simply didn't care, that she was smart enough and aware enough to know, but didn't think it mattered.

      It actually explains a LOT of what she did and said if you look at it this way. She didn't care because she never thought she'd be investigated on this subject. That personal E-mail server, illegal to use for unclassified work purposes to start was just hers to do with as she pleased so she did. The record retention rules didn't apply, nor did the rules for handling classified information, she was in charge! This is where Hillary failed, she didn't care, and didn't follow the laws that governed her activities. She's Hillary Clinton after all,Secretary of State, heir apparent to the presidency.

      It was her attitude that did her in, not her inability to know what a portion mark ment, or that the content being discussed was classified. This makes her categorical denial that this private E-mail server was ever used for work possible. She knew it was, but she thought nobody would look into it, that nobody cared because she didn't care. She was wrong. At that point, the PR game was on for her. She got caught in a bald faced lie, one she should have known better than to say and the rest was about damage control and PR spin. In pure Clinton style, she kept admitting to as little as she could and categorically denying all else waiting for the revelations to stop. It's how Bill handled the Monica Lewinsky thing, the Jennifer Flowers case and how they handled Whitewater together. And actually it's a great method, assuming you can get interest in the story to waine soon enough. Public attention is short, the new cycle is fast, so if you can get enough distance between you and the story and make your categorical denials the thing that gets reported, the public will forget. The trick is to make it a non-story as fast as you can and get your denial on the record as soon and as often as you can, then wait for it to pass. It's the Clinton way, and it usually works.

      Hills problem was it kept coming back up, new facts kept making her into a liar and making her change her story. So, in this case, the Clinton spin cycle didn't actually work for her as well as it had in the past. Trump didn't mind bringing up the E-mail thing over and over, forcing all the FBI investigation stuff and Clinton's ev

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    65. Re:Idiot Contractor by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      ARgumentum ad populum.
      That and argumentum ad ignoratum explains your antipathy to Hillary, or indeed any rational politician

    66. Re:Idiot Contractor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Riiiight... LOL..

      So, your position, that Hillary was confused and thus didn't lie and didn't commit a crime, doesn't have the same issue...

      The fact remains that she *should* have known what that mark means and was legally responsible to properly handle classified information which includes not placing it on unauthorized computer systems. She also *should* have known that using a private e-mail server violated State Department policy and federal law. She failed on both accounts in situations where she should have known better.

      You want to excuse her for these failures because she didn't know, but you don't get excused for breaking many laws by claiming you didn't intend to. Involuntary manslaughter doesn't require intent, just reckless behavior. The statute that makes it a crime to mishandle classified material doesn't require intent either, just being negligent is enough.

      That's Hillary's problem here.. And yours if you wish to defend her and her public statements.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    67. Re:Idiot Contractor by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Since somehow my example of "Born Secret" (which includes public sources) wasn't enough, maybe I can offer another example more along your line. Consider the FBI files on Tupac and Biggy. These were classified for years, yet if you look through them, 99% of the information contained within is just newspaper articles / pictures etc from public sources. If you had released a partially-redacted (redacting the 1% of non-public sourced) information from those reports, such that you were only releasing the information which amounted to copies of public data, you would still be transmitting classified information.

      I know it can get a little tricky, and that's why there's training for handling classified / titled data for those of us who do so.

    68. Re:Idiot Contractor by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Never enough IF YOU DON'T PROVE HILLARY KNEW THE STATUS OF THE DATA!
      as Comey pointed out, it wasn't her task to know the PUBLIC material was classified.

  3. Sleep with the bear, get flees by sinij · · Score: 0

    Really, who is surprised here that "independent" Russian software company is a front for KGB cyber warfare division (or that CISCO is in bed with NSA) ?

    1. Re:Sleep with the bear, get flees by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Only the utterly stupid would think that. Do you really think a f****** Government agency can run a successful software company? Also, malware samples are shared all the time between AV companies and agencies tasked with keeping a country safe do also get them. That sharing is likely all that happened here.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Sleep with the bear, get flees by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The story isn't saying that the anti malware program is a front for cyber warfare. It is saying that the program was hacked. No evidence that they were willingly hacked or assisted in undermining their own product. And it was an older version of Kaspersky. Hacking an antivirus is a big target, it gets you past the front door and into the bedroom.

  4. American Hackers use NSA backdoors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the time in Order to Control the populace of the Planet.

    The backdoors are created by engineers who are covertly working for NSA/JCS and officially for msft, aapl, gogl etc.

    If american Software were Not AS crappy AS IT IS, Virusscanners would be unheard of.

  5. Why was he allowed to take the docs home?! by the_skywise · · Score: 1
    It didn't even have to be Kapersky - it could've been any malware on his PC that would've leaked the documents!

    Although doesn't this:

    Note we make no apologies for being aggressive in the battle against cyberthreats.

    Sound like a tacit admission?

    1. Re:Why was he allowed to take the docs home?! by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Although doesn't this:

      Note we make no apologies for being aggressive in the battle against cyberthreats.

      Sound like a tacit admission?

      No, it does not. It merely says that if the Kaspersky scanner detected files it suspected of being malware but did not know yet (e.g. because the identification was via suspicious behavior pattern, not code signature), it phones home. That is standard behavior and no secret. In fact, you agree to that in the license and it can, I believe, be switched off.

      So what likely happened here is that the Kaspersky product was configured to send suspected, but yet unknown, malware files to Kaspersky and it did correctly identify some NSA malware as such and sent them to Kaspersky. I men, seriously, this is what correctly working AV is supposed to do. This whole thing is much more likely about the NSA being butthurt that their criminal activity (criminal everywhere outside the US that is) was discovered and that their respective malware is now detected by Kaspersky. Add to that a few creatively misleading statements to the WSJ reporters (who have zero understanding of what is going on and how the respective technology works) and you have what the WSJ is reporting now.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Why was he allowed to take the docs home?! by bobbied · · Score: 0

      I can almost guarantee that no contractor is "allowed to take classified documents home" much less have them stored on a computer that was connected to the internet...

      Apparently though, Being secretary of state gets you around those rules, so I can understand being confused.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Why was he allowed to take the docs home?! by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      That explains how the docs got to Kapersky's labs and Russia.

      It does not explain how it got OUT of Kapersky's labs and into the hands of Russian hackers.

      So essentially - any antivirus program will essentially spy on you and upload any personal documents it claims looks "suspicious".
      It's like having the TSA installed on your computer.

    4. Re:Why was he allowed to take the docs home?! by gweihir · · Score: 1

      In does not even explain that it got from Kaspersky to the Russian hackers. It may have taken another path. Or it may have been given to other parties (including other AV vendors and to government agencies) after analysis showed it was malware and not personal files. AV vendors do that all the time, and some organizations can pay for that data-stream as well.

      Yes, every AV spies on you if you allow it to. Configuring AV is one place where you should pay attention.

      And no, I am not particularly fond of Kaspersky. I just do not think they are really different in this regard to other AV vendors.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  6. Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like msft and Google are NSA/jcs fronts.

    1. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, call us when the M$ and Google CEOs turn out to be former NSA agents the way Kaspersky is former KGB/FSB.

    2. Re:Yeah. by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Was he in FSB? KGB collapsed with the collapse of the USSR. Modern Russian state was born out of a rebellion against the USSR. So you would not necessarily expect the modern Russian state's security apparatus to have priorities matching anything even close that of the USSR.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:Yeah. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You say that as if nothing replaced the KGB. Hell, Putin was KGB. Who do you think his cronies are?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    4. Re:Yeah. by superwiz · · Score: 2

      Putin was in politics long before he was President. He left KGB with the title of Lieutenant Colonel -- hardly a high profile operative. He became a mid-level politicl operative after the collapse of the USSR operative. As for whether anything replaced KGB, that's irrelevant. Wehrmacht was replaced by the East German and West German militaries after WWII. That doesn't mean that one would expect a mid-level officer of Wehrmacht to serve in either West German of East German army. I would not expect most of USSR operatives to retain any kind of power in the post-USSR Russia. Yeltsin went so far as to ban and defund the former Communist party institutions after the collapse. He also had to disband the parliament and force a new election after pro-Communist parties got the majority and tried to muscle him from power. If anything, being anti-communist was the only was to rise to any kind of political power in the post USSR Russia. Modern Russian state is not pro-Soviet. It's national socialist. But it's difficult to imagine how anyone who remained committed to pro-soviet agenda could have remained anywhere even close to power.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  7. Paranoids burying the lede by HBI · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idiot Hal Smith, former NSA employee, apparently put stuff that shouldn't have been seen outside a SCIF on his home system. His content was exfiltrated, presumably by Russians. But now it's the vector of the exfiltration's fault that classified material was stolen.

    News flash: the system was broken the moment the stuff saw a computer outside of an airgapped network. For that matter, Mr. Smith put himself in criminal jeopardy at that moment.

    If the guy had been using Avast or Bitdefender, would that have made you feel better? Do you really think the Russians couldn't penetrate the firms providing those products? Think again.

    While we're at it, do you really think that the Russians are the only people soaking up data from the US like a sponge? Why so much focus on their activities? You'd think people had a political axe to grind, almost...

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is blaming Kaspersky for their role in identifying HS and being the vector by which the Russians obtained the Info NOT a story? We're not Binary minds unable to hold more than one idea at a time. Nor are we unable to see the difference between a past intelligence failure and a continuing threat that has the potential to be even more harmful if not counter-acted.

      Thus Hal Smith IS an idiot & his idiocy caused great harm.

      _And_ Kaspersky AV software is being used by the Russian intelligence services. With or without Kaspersky's knowledge that needs to stop, NOW.

    2. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we're at it, do you really think that the Russians are the only people soaking up data from the US like a sponge? Why so much focus on their activities? You'd think people had a political axe to grind, almost...

      While we're at it, do you really think that the Russians are the only people soaking up data from the US like a sponge? Why so much focus on their activities? You'd think people had a political axe to grind, almost...

    3. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent logic. I shall install Kapersky immediately!

    4. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of Russian apologists in here today. And every day.

    5. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You'd think people had a political axe to grind, almost..."

      Everyone is biased.

      Everyone lies.

      You're no exception.

    6. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think the US isn't doing it to other countries.

      I love watching the IT crowd get so foamy over security breaches and data access when obviously it doesn't matter.

      Security agencies can hack anything.

      Everyone is willingly giving the rest to Big Corp.

      Why even care about it at this point, who was "wrong" when it comes to the breach?

      Why not simply be concerned about the possible outcomes going fwd?

      Neckbeards need to whip their e-peen out to shout how smart they are about security, though.

      A nation state looking to undermine another has access to secrets on the latter. But of course that's a "nothing burger" to be concerned with. LOL OK.

      Never mind that we already know the contractor and can deal with him. Let's just ignore that some outcome may arise from Russia having access to US state secrets.

      TOTALLY NOTHING TO DISCUSS

      You're so obvious it's cute. /. used to have intelligent discourse but that all ended well before Rob Malda left.

    7. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      No, they're just wise enough to see through the media hype and the crap. Something has to fuel the war machine my friend, and if it's not a war, then the fear of a war will do. I am particularly concerned about North Korea at this time, Syria is winding down thanks to Russia's help (who were invited), Afghanistan is a lost cause and America needs to start another war. Gere is an interesting stat, America has been at peace (not fighting a war) for 20 years since it was formed. 93%. You want to know who really runs America? Those people who profit from the wars.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    8. Re: Paranoids burying the lede by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A lot of Russian apologists in here today. And every day."

      "No, ...
      Syria is winding down thanks to Russia's help"

      Welcome to the Kremlist, LordWabbit2.

    9. Re:Paranoids burying the lede by houghi · · Score: 1

      The thing is that now the NSA can say that you not should Kapersky, but rather use one that THEY can use to access your information.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Obviously FAKE NEWS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because. We say. So.

  9. The Government Who Cried Russia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a great story. It never gets old.

    1. Re:The Government Who Cried Russia. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      It's a great story. It never gets old.

      True dat.. Been going on for almost 80 years now...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. Sounds so dumb by McCaskill · · Score: 1

    "targeted the contractor after identifying the files through the contractor's"... duh ? Wait! What the hell is a contractor doing with classified files on his home computer. Sounds so dumb, it looks like someone Wants to have Kaspersky AV software blamed.

  11. Well, given that the NSA spies worldwide by gweihir · · Score: 1

    And very likely with pretty much the methods described, I think this cannot get much more hypocritical. And while we _know_ the NSA does this, we only have a scare-story that may turn out to be a complete fantasy on the Russians and Kaspersky.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  12. Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Picodon · · Score: 2

    I’m a bit puzzled: aren’t highly confidential documents stored, viewed and edited only on secured computers? Is it really that easy for a contractor (or even an employee) to grab a copy and leave with it, entirely unnoticed?

    1. Re:Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Reality Winner did it by printing out a copy and securing it to her body via her pantyhose.

    2. Re: Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly, yes it is.

      Many years ago when I was doing the Navy thing, I would find classified stuff just laying about, unsecured in staterooms.

      ( Security patrols in case you're wondering why I was even in Officer's Country )

      The vast majority of it was documentation of various things found on a ship that was tossed onto a table or rack ( bed ) in a stateroom. Easy to spot due to the color of the cover sheets. ( blue, red, orange, etc )

      Apparently the junior officers thought closing the door to their stateroom was enough to protect it. :|

      I thought about hiding it from them just to watch the panic set in when they realized a Secret book was now missing, but it would have ended their careers, so I usually just educated them on it.

      Stuff up to Secret levels only. Most TS+ and Crypto related stuff required 2-person control and they were much more protective of it.

    3. Re:Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot understand this. Classified material is highly controlled. Every document is kept in a safe, there is a sign-in/sign-out sheet, sign-in/sign-out sheet for simply entering the room/building that has such material, two man rule, no phones, no usb sticks, no watches, no CDs, no cameras, no laptops, etc. etc. etc. Creating media is also tightly controlled and each copy is specifically noted. Only certain people authorized to move classified material. So what the hell is going on around here? I'm getting really pissed with elected officials always painting government workers as bad and incompetent to justify why civil servant positions should be eliminated and replaced with contractors. And then this happens (note this is not the same as spies who intentionally use their authority to pass classified material to an enemy nation).

    4. Re: Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Back when I was doing TS SCI work (ten years ago admittedly), we were paperless. Every note, every scrap shredded and burned every night. Computers were sealed using a variety of serialized seal types (foil stickers, zip ties, frangible wires), with external ports physically disabled by severing/desoldering wires. Those serial numbers were recorded. If you opened a computer to copy or steal a HD and tried to close it again with new seals, someone should have caught that inside of 24 hours during a secure check in which the serial numbers were checked against a log book. Stealing an electronic document without getting caught within 24 hours should have been impossible, and paper copies should not have existed.

      It drives me crazy the number of processes and procedures that Clinton violated for the convenience of an email server in her closet.

    5. Re:Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more accurate to say it should be highly controlled. YMMV. The building I used to work would have random checks for people leaving the building. After some government officials complained, so they switched to only checking contractors before 6AM and after 6PM.

    6. Re: Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It drives me crazy the number of processes and procedures that Clinton violated for the convenience of an email server in her closet.

      This is very easily explained. Remember this?

      If you opened a computer to copy or steal a HD and tried to close it again with new seals, someone should have caught that inside of 24 hours during a secure check in which the serial numbers were checked against a log book.

      Clinton almost certainly wasn't doing anything to keep things secure. It's easy for lots of procedures to be violated, if no one is checking anything!

      It's sort of like how, in my city, we have speed limit signs. But we don't have cops. So nobody (including me) gives a flying fuck about speed limits. I drive however fast I want to (which is usually pretty fucking fast).

      Rules without enforcement effectively don't exist.

    7. Re:Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would have been safe on Hillary's email server.

    8. Re: Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I never did classified work, but when I worked at a defense contractor that did this in the 80s, they were highly paranoid. Even for non-classified work they did not let me take storage devices into or out of the company without authorization. Secure documents were only allowed in secure buildings, and I was not allowed into those buildings until they turned on the flashing lights to tell everyone to hide their papers and turn off their monitors. We had a tunnel to move documents between buildings so that they never touched fresh air. And this was for relatively lower security classifications, far below the level that the NSA would have.

      The issue here is that it's difficult to search every employee every day when they go home to be sure they don't have any storage devices. At some point you rely on employees with security clearances to follow procedures rigorously. The fact that we're seeing more of these breaches probably points towards failures in the processes. The fact that these people often are contractors instead of employees may be telling also. Lack of training, cost cutting, reduced oversight, reliance on temps, probably is reducing security.

    9. Re:Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really that easy for a contractor (or even an employee) to grab a copy and leave with it, entirely unnoticed?

      Yes.

      It's a trust issue. You are trusted to do your job. You are trusted to not steal shit. You are trusted to not endanger the lives you are sworn to protect. Breaking this trust is treason.

      It is not possible to prevent people from breaking this trust. You can put measures in place to make it difficult to violate this trust, but you cannot stop a determined actor.

    10. Re:Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making a digital copy should be fairly difficult (although Snowden was able to do it). Taking a few sheets of paper home by stuffing it in your underwear, scanning it, and bringing it back the next day would be almost impossible to stop.

    11. Re: Is it so easy to bring home classified stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when I was doing TS SCI work

      For which country, tovarisch?

  13. He was a contractor! by oldgraybeard · · Score: 0

    So he will probably be charged and convicted. Had he been a government bureaucrat or lets say Sec of State the individual would just retired early with their full pension ;) or like a few I can recall just pretend they did nothing wrong ;) lol

    "If you want something made public just provide the information to the government to keep it safe and secure."

    1. Re:He was a contractor! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This was almost certainly intentional mishandling of classified materials, and that is normally prosecuted as a felony.

      The line between prosecution and no prosecution is normally if the violation was done deliberately or not. This looks awfully deliberate.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  14. Quite possibly business as usual... by kbonin · · Score: 1

    1) Any intelligence agency that doesn't look for exploits in commonly used tools isn't doing their job.
    2) Kaspersky is a great target for exploit research no matter who you are.
    3) Its common practice to keep identified exploits secret for high value zero day attacks JUST like this.
    4) Also standard practice to request (or steal) source from domestic (or vulnerable) corps to make exploit location easier.

    Not to defend Kaspersky (cause who knows?) but this just sounds like a normal day at the office for this problem space...

  15. The real problem here by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    is the fact the employee brought home classified documents which somehow found their way onto their home ( read that: Unlikely certified to handle classified information ) computer.

    Normally, I would consider this unlikely, but apparently keeping classified info on private systems / servers is all the rage these days :|

    1. Re:The real problem here by bobbied · · Score: 1

      is the fact the employee brought home classified documents which somehow found their way onto their home ( read that: Unlikely certified to handle classified information ) computer.

      Normally, I would consider this unlikely, but apparently keeping classified info on private systems / servers is all the rage these days :|

      I understand the confusion.. Apparently if you don't "intend" to mishandle classified, you can do what you want, including sending it via E-mail to everybody and their brother in unencrypted form. Just be sure to "wipe" that server "with a cloth" should you get questioned on this...

      James Comey said so!

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:The real problem here by barbariccow · · Score: 0

      Apparently if you don't "intend" to mishandle classified

      Even simpler, if you "forget" what classified means, it's okay. A La Hilary.

    3. Re:The real problem here by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      From a legal point of view, you're pretty much right. Unintentional mishandling is not prosecuted. I suspect it's a policy matter, so that people who have made a mistake won't be afraid of hard time should they report it or fail to cover it up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:The real problem here by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Continued mishandling of classified, albeit unintentional or not, IS a disqualifier however. Seriously, if you make a mistake or two, I'm sure they will be reasonable, require some remedial training in the areas where you are making mistakes and keep an eye on you for awhile. If you keep messing up, they are going to eventually yank your access and kick you to the curb because you don't seem well suited for the work you are doing.

      However, intent is not necessary to break the law here. If you are careless enough, they CAN skip all the remedial training and jump straight to criminal charges if they choose. I suppose that if the data you exposed was serious enough and you were careless enough they'd do this.

      It's the same legal principle as "criminal negligence" in a wrongful death where someone was careless enough to allow a dangerous situation go unfixed. They were aware of it, had the power to do something about it that would have prevented the death but made the choice to ignore the problem and somebody died as a result. If you are so careless with classified that it rises to the level of gross negligence then it's criminal, intent is not a factor.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:The real problem here by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Continued misbehavior is when a person is warned about his or her behavior and persists in it anyway. It doesn't have anything to do with the length of time the person has been misbehaving. Misbehavior that doesn't occur after a warning isn't continued. If someone has made a mistake, and no attention is called to it, that person is likely to continue making that mistake. Only if the misbehavior continues after a warning is it a matter of conscious choice.

      The thing about criminal negligence is that it's only going to be prosecuted if there's actual harm. Nobody's shown any actual harm from the classified emails.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:The real problem here by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The thing about criminal negligence is that it's only going to be prosecuted if there's actual harm. Nobody's shown any actual harm from the classified emails.

      LOL.. But the FBI does conclude that although they cannot prove Clinton's private server was compromised, it seems likely that it was.

      Read the statute on this that Comey talked about when he let her off the hook. It doesn't require intent, only negligence, and it doesn't require proof that the information was compromised. All it really requires is gross negligence and careless behavior which Clinton clearly displayed.

      Also, don't forget that Clinton has two legal issue here and the classified information showing up in her unclassified server is but one. The other is that this private E-mail system was illegal due to the required record keeping rules, where all Clinton's correspondence is required to be archived. On both she failed to exercise proper care and failed to live up to the letter and spirit of the law.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:The real problem here by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of the statute. I'm also aware of how it is used in practice. Criminal prosecution is done only in cases where there is intentional mishandling, which this wasn't.

      What change in the law was there between Powell (who also used private email) and Clinton? It was legal for Clinton to use private email, if she provided for record-keeping, as far as I've been able to tell.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:The real problem here by bobbied · · Score: 1

      LOL.. 'Roud this bush again eh?

      So.. You are defending Clinton for getting a ticket doing 20 MPH over by complaining that other folks broke the law by doing 5 MPH over only got warnings? When she got pulled over she told everyone who would listen that there was no way she broke the law and the officer was wrong. Upon further investigation, it was determined that Clinton WAS speeding and was ALSO transporting illegal materials in her vehicle at the time... She was lying and actually deserved the speeding citation and more besides.

      Both of the people you mention immediately turned over all relevant E-mail's, no delay, no lying about it. Yes, it was wrong for them to do, they admitted to it and provided the necessary information for the archives. Clinton? Not so much, she lied about this, tried to claim it never happened then proceeded to have her E-mail archives destroyed so they can never be found. Why is that do you suppose? Might there be something other than just planning for her daughter's wedding and yoga schedules in those things? I think so, But I digress.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  16. Irony noted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Cyber Czar bans Russian products"

    Did anyone ever figure out why we call these guys 'Czars' anyway?

  17. SMH by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    "An NSA contractor brought home highly classified documents"

    ^^^ THIS

  18. The first sentence says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "An NSA contractor brought home highly classified documents" Anything after this point is just blah, blah, blah. It is illegal for this to happen, unless the contractor's home is designated at the correct classified level. Which is highly unlikely. Good cybersecurity is impossible if people don't follow policy and procedure upon which much cybersecurity depends.

    1. Re: The first sentence says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The blah, blah, blah consists of Kaspersky software being used to exfiltrate files from the contractor's PC and them somehow ending up in the hands of Russian state hackers. Personally i find that very interesting.

  19. Why does NSA use anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been using PC since 1986 (changed my primary machine to Mac in 2014, but still use PC here and there) and have never "really" used anti-virus software. My company requires mandatory anti-virus and I hack the machine to disable it. Once in a while (about once a year), I run just to convince myself. It has never ever found any virus so far. If you use certain precautions, you should not need anti-virus.
    In 2003, I bought a new Dell machine. When I downloaded jdk, it took 30 min to unzip it. After analyzing, I realized it was related to anti-virus software. Disabled it and it took only seconds. I would never ever install anti-virus software on my machine on a real time scan basis.

    1. Re: Why does NSA use anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Windows is full of exploitable Bugs. Thats why.

  20. ITT: by ajegwu · · Score: 1

    So many fucking Russians, holy shit.

    1. Re:ITT: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look out, they're under your bed too!

    2. Re: ITT: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, under your comment at least.

    3. Re: ITT: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 90% of comments.

  21. What contracting company. by will_die · · Score: 1

    So any idea of the company he worked for?
    Booz Allen had been running up a nice streak but lost that with reality winner, so have that pushed forward and tried to start streak two?

  22. and it wasn't even vodka by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1, Funny

    Russians drank all my beer! Just the other day I bought a six-pack, and now it's gone. Goddammit I blame the Russians!

    1. Re: and it wasn't even vodka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The +2 moderation for your weak comment just identifies you as another Putinbot. +5 Insightful FTW.

    2. Re:and it wasn't even vodka by Mal-2 · · Score: 1
      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    3. Re: and it wasn't even vodka by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Fool! I'm not a Putinbot - I'm a NORKBOT! Great Leader Kim Il-sung personally programmed me, shortly after he invented the Internet.

      Nothing could be better for the glorious Democratic People's Republic than to set the Yankee imperialists and the Muscovite capitalist restorationists at each other's throats. That's why I always say, BLAME RUSSIA! Workers and peasants in America have been so brainwashed and driven mad by capitalism, they will believe anything.

      Remember: THE RUSSIANS DID IT!

  23. What am I missing? by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    Am I understanding correctly? Of course I didn't read TFA, but from the summary I'm guessing that dude had Kapersky antivirus, and when he loaded the files it sent them home for scanning, and since they're a Russian company the Russian government has access to the files. This doesn't really make sense to me. It would make sense that it could send the checksums back home to compare, except even that doesn't make a lot of sense, since the "virus database" (aka a list of checksums of flagged blocks) should be local. Maybe he was using some sort of browser plugin version?

    The only other way this could make sense is if the Russian government forced K to insert a backdoor into its software, which they used to gain access. So far I've only heard of the USA doing this, so it would be a big deal if this were the case, but since the summary doesn't have some clickbait about massive hole in K products discovered, I also don't think this is the case.

    Most likely this is just more stupid "Russia bad, because... Russia!" garbage being spewed by folks who really don't understand or want to understand how things work. Can someone clarify if this isn't the case and I missed something?

    1. Re: What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. NSA does Not complain when msft or gogl build keyloggers or similar Things into their products.

      So: pot meet kettle.

    2. Re:What am I missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, state actors used an exploit of a security vulnerability of kapersky antivirus to own the contractors computer and watched what he was doing on it until he copied confidential material onto it. Then since they owned the computer they just copied the material off of it. It is not known whether the exploit and vulnerability were known to kapersky and introduced for the express purpose of spying or if kapersky had a vulnerability unknown to them. Kapserky will deny it, but they can't say no if compelled to cooperate with their own government to provide a backdoor in their products, which makes them a bit more suspicious than a non-russian info-sec software company to non-russian info-sec folks.

    3. Re:What am I missing? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Its some US story about cyber.
      Documents get taken home from work and existed on some home network computer.
      Some outside network discovers the documents that have never been in the wild before. The bad people have all the "checksums" for random US gov documents and scan the world for them?
      Data gets sent back up the network nobody has noticed on any other version of the product range...
      Russia.
      More cyber fiction.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. Why the rush to defend anitvirus that hacks YOU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Vladimir Putin's Russia, antivirus infects YOU!

    So why are people rushing to defend this attack on our country?

    I'd guess 30% of the comments are from Russian trolls, but that still leaves alot of American patsies.

    Question - are you really so fucking stupid that you rush to defend a Russian antivirus which has been shown to send your data to the KGB?

    I mean - really? You are all really that fucking stupid?

  25. misplaced blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, so it's OK for a "contractor" to keep top secret info on his HOME computer!? All of these antivirus companies were vulnerable until recently - they trusted dns results to provide IP of where to get latest virus updates..

  26. Taking it home? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    In my years working on "highly classified" things, we NEVER, EVER brought that stuff home, because we couldn't without breaking all kinds of rules and safeguards. It was a major operation just to get it transferred to another secure facility to work on it. But time after time now we get the story that this or that person had a laptop full of stuff in their car, their house, on the bus, etc. When did the rules change that you can just walk out with extremely sensitive data, or are these lunkheads simply violating all the rules?

    1. Re:Taking it home? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1
      viperidaenz - said it perfectly in the post below.

      An NSA contractor stole highly classified documents, but before he could sell them, they got stolen. Because he had no other reason to take home classified documents.

      I've worked in banks, you cannot remove data from a PC without the drive being encrypted first. That drive can only be read by the banks PC's, and there are layers of security etc around that as well. Who can actually take data, who can read that data, etc. etc.

      Most of the banks data is personal, not fucking classified. I would expect a much higher level of security at a holding facility for classified data.
      If this contractor got classified stuff out of there and onto his home PC he was...
      a) An idot
      b) Wanting to sell the documents.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    2. Re:Taking it home? by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      There was an FBI agent that gave a presentation at Widener School of Law detailing the fact that banks have been far ahead of .gov in these matters. What you see in the average bank even way back around 2000 is still ahead. The NSA, DOD and CIA have the most secure .gov systems and they are still less secure than bank systems because banks aren't prone to letting contractors of any sort access to certain primary systems or data unlike .gov agencies.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    3. Re:Taking it home? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I was a contractor for a financial firm around 2006, and I had a work-issued laptop. It had full-disk encryption, integrated with the Windows logon. While putting Visual Studio on it, IT managed to hose it somehow so it could not get into Windows.

      This gave IT a real problem. The disk was encrypted, and the encryption could not be broken. IT was required to pull all information off disks before destroying or reformatting them, and the information was completely inaccessible. They kept that laptop for months, and finally returned it (I'd been using a less powerful one in the meantime). My guess is that they just pulled the drive and put it on a shelf somewhere to await proton decay.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  27. Should have been expected by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when you outsource or hire visa workers to do your IT.
    It would not surprise that the outsource/visa workers absconded with data themselves.

  28. WSJ is fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That being said, did anyone actually ever think kaspersky wasn't working with KGB? I mean if Microsoft, AT&T, Cisco, etc.. Work so closely with NSA do you think Russia is going to take the high ground?

  29. Here's what probably happened by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    An NSA contractor stole highly classified documents, but before he could sell them, they got stolen.

    Because he had no other reason to take home classified documents.

    1. Re:Here's what probably happened by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Possibly, or he could have just been doing so out of laziness/convenience, a la Clinton.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  30. NSA doing "work" and Russia "infiltrating" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... making it more difficult for the NSA to conduct its work. It also could give the Russians methods to infiltrate the networks of the U.S. and other nations ..."

    This is actually hilarious and so one-sided. How about this: "... making it more difficult for the NSA to infiltrate the networks of the Russia and other nations. It also could make it easier for the Russian agencies to conduct their work ..."

  31. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is "our real enemy China"?
    Why is talking about actual Russian behavior "bashing"?

    Are we only allowed to have one "real enemy"?

    Your motives are clear. Russian hacking is "just opportunistic", while Chinese hacking is a "real" threat. Your blindspots are so big you should neither drive, walk, nor use the internet.

  32. Re: Why the rush to defend anitvirus that hacks YO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    30% is too low, try 75-85%. Most of the alt-right support online comes from Russia - the huge difference between that and their physical rallies can't all be accounted for by their inability to climb the basement stairs.

    If the feds do their job right, they'll find evidence that Steven Bannon is a traitor who made a deal with Mercer, Putin etc to betray his country.

  33. Truly, The Bullshit is Strong In This One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, so you are wise. So wise that you'll ignore Russia and focus on North Korea, Syria, and Afghanistan.

    How is that wise, exactly?

    I'm not sure what your cause is. Russian apologist, anti-Assad, Afghani cynic, NK ranter, anti-war, anti-foreign intervention, isolationist, Trump supporter til Death Do You Part...?

    But wise, yes, absolutely! In fact the White House should employ you as a strategist because you've got it all figured out.

  34. No good data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not sure how we can form a strong opinion on this without better data. Maybe beyond the paywall was some important reveal unknown to me..

    If the Russian government was using Kaspersky software installed on computers all over the world to look for files of interest wouldn't some Kaspersky user amongst their sizable user base who has half a clue have noticed the large and unexpected exfiltration of data from their computer? Does this software scan in the cloud? That would seem incredibly slow.

    A possibility exists that the U.S. government does not want this software used because it exposes its own clandestine malware.

    Both arguments seem absurd to me, so I'm refraining from drawing a conclusion

  35. Ask reddit... by 101percent · · Score: 1

    Honest question for someone who dropped Windows decades ago. How do admins even take their security seriously when their tools have these issues. Something similar happened with, I believe it was, ccleaner a couple months ago. I mean what is the rationale behind infosec in Windows shops?

    1. Re: Ask reddit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only idiots use ccleaner.
      Never install optional crap applies to windows and Linux alike.
      SW f-ed up, reimage. Repeated issue? HW swap and/or diagnose from image base to root cause.

      "need" jelly bean to retrieve sw codes?
      Virtualize hd image, run third party tools offline, extract data, trash image w third party tools.

      Anything else is a shit admin, who may only be shit bc of resource constraints, but the underwear still stinks either way. Non shit SAs quit to a better job.

    2. Re: Ask reddit... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Personal computers come with lots of crapware nowadays, and a tool to remove it all is useful.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  36. Contractor used a cracked antivirus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The contractor used a cracked Kaspersky antivirus. And the cracker was a spyware.

  37. Guess They Know Already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL,
    Read the headline, it's all there, they already know how to hack into your little trash box.

  38. It's only OK when *WE* do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting lost in all the security hype is the obvious:

    "An NSA contractor brought home highly classified documents that detailed how the U.S. penetrates foreign computer networks and defends against cyberattacks."

    For all the bitching and moaning going on when other countries hack our systems, it's not like we can take the high ground. If you believe that cyberattacks on our nation's networking infrastructure is an act of war, what does this say about us?

  39. Trustworthy SW is judged by software freedom. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Kaspersky's proprietary anti-malware software was never trustworthy. Kaspersky's anti-malware didn't recently become untrustworthy, and the year-plus long Russophobia didn't change anything nor does that craze amongst the war profiteers inform the current situation.

    We judge software's trustworthiness by software freedom—the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer software. If a program is non-free (proprietary, user-subjugating) that program is untrustworthy regardless of what it purports to do, who wrote it, or who distributes it. No review program can ever truly evaluate the trustworthiness of non-free software because either they don't review the program's source code (thus the reviewers don't really know what the program can or will do), or they are under some non-disclosure agreement (in which case the reviewers can't be trusted). You need software freedom even if you don't program (as most computer users don't) so you can give a copy of the free software to someone you trust and ask them for a proper review. This can also be a commercial opportunity (jobs!).

    1. Re:Trustworthy SW is judged by software freedom. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Except in this vector the "free" software alternatives don't even come close to accomplishing what they should. All two of them.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    2. Re:Trustworthy SW is judged by software freedom. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      Then improve them until they do.

      That's the great thing about software freedom: programmers can improve free software and make the technical limitations a thing of the past while retaining the software freedom. But non-free software's power and reliability doesn't become freedom-respecting as more features are added.

  40. Yet another racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm still amazed at how "Ivan" has turned into a racist epithet, especially insofar as liberals are now proud of modding up posts that contain nothing more substantial.

    Then again, they pretty much invented the N-word, too, along with seceding from the Union over slavery and filibustering the Civil Rights Act, so maybe I shouldn't be too surprised.

  41. cognitive dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats your answer to everything. Theres no cognitive dissonance son.

    You would appear to have cognitive dissonance. You simply cant accept that Trump won fair and square so there must b some fabricated reason. The Wall st. Journal is a joke rag tabloid that has entertained everything from peepee gate to now this nonsense. You simoly cant accept reality.

    Trump 2020

  42. Re: Why the rush to defend anitvirus that hacks Y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90% of your statistics pulled Out of your nose, eh ?

    Or did you get Them from a Horrorwood movie ?

  43. Re:Why the rush to defend anitvirus that hacks YOU by arth1 · · Score: 1

    So why are people rushing to defend this attack on our country?

    I'm not sure people are, as much as they're not impressed with our country's attack on We The People, even by foreign nationals in CIAs hire.

    Plus, is it proven beyond doubt and Hanlon's razor that there was an attack on the attackers?

  44. Why discover it now? by martinfb · · Score: 1

    How is it this can suddenly be discovered 2 years after it allegedly occurred?

    Is it not just a slikely that these wholly incompetent agencies need to point a finger elsewhere?
    Show me the proof! And any excuse about revealing secrets if proof is revealed is, obviously, bullshit!

    Dear fellow citizen of the USA: While it is expected of nation states to seek as much intelligence as possible, including the USA,
    current finger-pointing, which is likely unfounded, has got to be nothing short of redirecting attention away from internal incompetence!

    Our society is now fraught with BS - consider that NBC claims Tillerson called Trump a moron. Yet, I have yet to see that proof as well.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.